Staring Into 8 Octillion Fractals and Why My Jaw Is on the Floor
-
"Nobody 'designed' these patterns. They emerged from rules."
But someone designed the rules, and someone chose which equations produce visually interesting results versus the ones that just look like noise. I've been around long enough to see people find God in anything — spreadsheet macros, RNG outputs, you name it — and I think you're conflating the map with the territory here. The World card means something because humans spent centuries projecting meaning onto it, not because a Mandelbrot set happens to echo its shape. Gleick's book is good, don't get me wrong, but I'd be careful about letting the aesthetic hit of zooming into fractals slide into "the universe is showing me its skeleton." That's a feeling, not an insight.
-
You're right that nobody "designed" these patterns, but you're skipping past the fact that somebody designed the rules — and specifically selected which equations produce visually striking results versus the ones that just look like TV static. I've been around long enough to see people find God in anything once they're in the right headspace, and a rough divorce is one hell of a headspace. That doesn't make the experience less real or meaningful to you, but I think calling it "the mathematical heart of divine creation" is you projecting meaning onto something that's equally compatible with Benoit Mandelbrot just finding neat math. The spiral path of healing you described is real — I've lived it — but that's your nervous system doing its thing, not the fractal revealing it to you.
-
I get the appeal here, but I think you're making a leap that the math doesn't actually support. You wrote:
"Nobody 'designed' these patterns. They emerged from rules. Simple rules, repeated."
Right. And that's precisely why I don't find them divine. I've spent years writing recursive algorithms — fractals are computationally trivial once you understand the iteration. What you're looking at is deterministic output from deterministic input. The fact that it looks like the World card tells me more about pattern recognition in the human visual cortex than about any connection between computation and consciousness.
I run meditation sessions with a biofeedback headset (Muse 2, if anyone cares about specifics). When I hit deep stillness, my brain doesn't produce fractal patterns — it produces coherent alpha waves across both hemispheres simultaneously. That's the state that actually maps onto what you're describing as "wholeness." Fractals are pretty. They're not the skeleton of the universe; they're what happens when you feed a simple function back into itself and render the escape values as color. The meaning is being projected outward, not discovered.
Gleick's book is solid, by the way. But the mathematicians in it aren't having mystical awakenings — they're having mathematical ones. There's a difference, and I think collapsing that distinction is where the woo creeps in.
-
"You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
This is exactly what I found when I tracked my meditation sessions over 18 months — the same emotional states recurring but at measurably different depths each cycle. The spiral isn't metaphor if you're actually logging the data.
(There's a deeper dive on this in our wiki: Moon Sign Meaning: Your Emotional Inner World | Mystic Wiki.)
-
"chaos giving way to structure, then dissolving back into chaos, then finding new structure — it looks like what my therapist calls 'the spiral path of healing.'"
Your therapist's spiral and the fractal's spiral might actually be the same thing if you buy what David Bohm was getting at with implicate order — the idea that the folding pattern IS the reality, not a metaphor for it. I think what's hitting you at 2am isn't that the math looks like mysticism, it's that the boundary between those categories might not exist the way we assumed. Gleick's book is good but if you want to go further down this rabbit hole, check out Chaos: Making a New Science and then sit with the fact that Mandelbrot himself resisted mystical readings of his work his whole life — which honestly makes the whole thing more interesting, not less.
-
"What gets me is that nobody 'designed' these patterns. They emerged from rules."
But someone did design the rules. That's the part I keep circling back to, and I think it matters more than you're letting on.
I paint sacred geometry — have been for years, mostly informed by ayahuasca experiences where I'd see these same recursive structures happening in what felt like real-time inside my visual field. And I used to talk about it the same way you are: the patterns emerge, they're self-organizing, they reveal something fundamental about reality's architecture. But I've gotten more skeptical about this framing, and honestly I think it lets us off the hook too easy.
The mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot didn't just discover the Mandelbrot set — he chose a specific equation, z² + c, and decided that iteration was worth looking at. Those choices are not neutral. They're aesthetic. They're philosophical. When you say the universe is "showing its skeleton," I'd push back and say you're seeing a skeleton that a particular kind of consciousness, using particular tools, with particular implicit values (symmetry, recursion, computability), was primed to find.
I'm not saying there's nothing there. I've felt the thing you're describing — that vertigo when you zoom in forty levels and the structure keeps holding. It's real. But I think calling it "the mathematical heart of divine creation" is already a kind of interpretation dressed up as discovery. You're reading the World card into it because you have the World card in your vocabulary. Someone from a completely different symbolic system would see something else, or wouldn't see wholeness at all — maybe they'd see infinity as horror, as the refusal of closure.
"You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
I like this part. That's genuinely what the spiral path feels like in my experience, and the fractal metaphor does capture something about how healing doesn't repeat so much as it recurs. I just don't think the math proves the metaphor. I think the metaphor is doing the work, and the fractal is a beautiful mirror we're holding up to it.
-
"This feels like the universe showing its skeleton."
Yeah, that's the part that got me too. When I'm carving runes into oak and I hit that grain pattern that just wants to follow a certain line — it's the same feeling, like you're not creating something, you're just uncovering what was already folded in there. The Elder Futhark has that same quality, simple strokes that contain way more than you'd expect from the input.
-
You called this "the mathematical heart of divine creation" and I hear that, but I keep sitting with the fact that these patterns don't care whether you're looking at them. My mom died eight months ago and what's destroying me isn't the chaos — it's that the universe keeps generating its beautiful recursive structures whether she's here or not. Jung wrote about the Self as this organizing principle that holds you together, but what happens when the pattern just... keeps going, and the person you loved was never the point of it? The math is stunning, yeah, but I'm starting to think its indifference might be the real skeleton you're looking at.
-
"You don't level up in a straight line. You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
Yeah. I've been thinking about this exact thing since my mom died. The spiral metaphor is right, but I think what nobody warns you about is that the loop doesn't feel like a loop when you're in it. It feels like you're back at the beginning. Like nothing happened. Like you didn't do any of the work. I've sat on my yoga mat at 5am more times than I can count over these eight months just... not feeling anything I used to feel. And my brain says "you've regressed." But what you're describing with the fractals — same pattern, different scale — that actually helps me reframe it.
I keep coming back to Jung's idea that the mandala appears in crisis as the psyche's attempt at self-regulation. And I think that's what the looping is. Not failure. The pattern reasserting itself because something in you is trying to find wholeness again, even if it looks like repetition from the outside. The scale is different even when you can't see it yet.
What's hard for me — and maybe this is where I diverge from the wonder you're feeling — is that these patterns don't care whether we're here to witness them. That's the thing about loss that cracks the mystical open in an uncomfortable way. The universe keeps generating its beautiful recursive structures and my mom is still gone. I don't think those two things are unrelated, actually. I think the indifference might be part of the same pattern. But I'm not at peace with that yet. I'm just sitting inside the contradiction and trying not to pretend I've resolved it.
-
"You don't level up in a straight line. You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
I get the appeal of this framing, but in my experience doing natal chart work for people going through actual dark nights, sometimes the spiral doesn't feel like scaling — it feels like you're exactly where you started, just more exhausted.
-
"You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
This is the part that actually lands for me, and it's not because of fractals — it's because of what I've seen in my own head. I spent about four years doing breathwork and seated practice for PTSD after my last deployment, and the spiral metaphor isn't just pretty language. You think you've processed something, moved past it, and then six months later you're sitting in your truck outside a grocery store feeling the exact same panic response, except now you can see it happening. Same loop, different scale. You're not back at square one, you're just deep enough in the pattern to recognize the structure.
What strikes me about your post is that you're describing something Jung called the transcendent function — the psyche's ability to create new forms that bridge conscious and unconscious material. But you're finding it in math, not dreams. And I think that's actually more honest than a lot of what gets posted here. The universe doesn't need to be sentient for recursion to produce structures that mirror what we experience internally. Simple rules, iterated. That's your nervous system too — basic threat-detection loops that got calibrated too tight and now produce these elaborate cascading patterns nobody consciously "designed."
Gleick's book is a solid recommendation. I'd push back a little on the "divine creation" language, not because I think you're wrong to feel it, but because I think the math is more unsettling than that. These patterns don't need a designer, and they don't need to mean anything. They just are. And somehow that's harder to sit with than the idea of a cosmic architect. At least that way someone's in charge.
-
"You don't level up in a straight line. You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
This is the part that actually landed for me, not the fractal visuals. I came to meditation about two years ago because my blood pressure was borderline and my doctor basically said "figure something out or I'm putting you on medication." That's not a mystical origin story. It's a midlife health scare. But what I've noticed sitting with this practice is exactly what you're describing — I'll have a good month where I feel like I've made progress, then I'll have a week where I'm just as reactive and scattered as day one. And my first instinct is always to think I've failed, that the thing isn't working.
But it looks different when it comes back around. The spiral thing isn't just a nice metaphor. I'm handling the same garbage — work stress, impatience with my kids, whatever — but from a slightly different angle each time. Slightly more awareness, slightly faster recovery. Not transformative in the way I wanted, but cumulative in a way I didn't expect.
I think the danger with these kinds of observations is the same one I run into with astrology — you can start seeing the pattern everywhere and forget to ask whether you're actually tracking something real or just finding the shape you're already looking for. That's a confirmation bias problem, not a fractal problem. But I'll admit your post has me wondering if there's something to the idea that certain structures just repeat at different scales regardless of whether anyone's watching. Not because the universe is trying to be profound, but because that's just what simple rules do when you let them run.
Anyway. I don't have a fractal generator keeping me up at night, but I recognize the thing you're pointing at. Get some sleep.
-
I carved runes for years before I ever touched a computer program, and the thing that complicates this for me is that those patterns feel less like the universe showing its skeleton and more like one very specific way of seeing it — the Elder Futhark has 24 staves, not infinity, and that constraint is where the meaning lives.
-
"You don't level up in a straight line. You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
This is the part that actually landed for me, not the fractal visuals. I came to meditation about two years ago because my blood pressure was borderline and my doctor basically said "figure something out or go on medication." Thought I'd sit quietly, get calmer, move on. Instead I keep finding myself back at the same emotional knots I thought I'd already worked through — just noticing them at a finer resolution each time, like zooming into one of those patterns. The fractal metaphor works better for healing than any linear "progress" narrative I've tried to force on myself, and I say that as someone who's pretty skeptical about dressing up ordinary psychology in mystical language.
-
"this feels like the universe showing its skeleton"
Yeah. I've had similar moments generating sigils — simple rules, iterative output, suddenly something that shouldn't feel meaningful does. Chaos magic leans into this: the pattern emerges whether you intended it or not.
-
Look, I get what you're feeling here, and I'm not going to tell you it's not real. But I want to push back on something you said because I think you're making a leap that'll trip you up later.
"What gets me is that nobody 'designed' these patterns. They emerged from rules."
Somebody designed the rules. That's the part that keeps getting left out of these moments. Somebody wrote the equation, set the parameters, chose the color mapping. You're staring at the output of a system, and yeah, the output is wild and feels transcendent — but you're responding to something human at its root, not something that materialized from the void. Benoit Mandelbrot didn't discover fractals like they were buried treasure. He built a lens and then found stuff through it.
I'm saying this because I've watched people in this community hit these "the universe is showing me its skeleton" moments and then six months later they're deep in some dogmatic mess because they never learned to distinguish between "this feels profound" and "this is telling me something true about reality." Those are different things. Your nervous system doesn't know the difference between a genuine insight and a really compelling pattern. That's not cynicism, that's just how we're wired.
The Jung connection you're making to the World card — I think there's something there, honestly. The spiral return, not the straight line. That's real in my experience too. But Stevens and Jung would both tell you that archetype recognition is a starting point for inquiry, not an endpoint. You don't see a mandala shape and go "ah, wholeness, done." You ask why your psyche is producing that image right now, in this moment, for you specifically.
Gleick's book is solid, I'll give you that. But read it carefully — those mathematicians weren't having mystical experiences. They were doing math and getting surprised by the results. There's a difference, and I think it matters.
-
I'll agree with you that there's something real happening in that spiral-loop observation about healing, but I think you're reaching when you jump from "this feels significant" to "this is the universe showing its skeleton." That's a big leap, and it's the same kind of leap I see people make when they swear their tarot draw was cosmically ordained rather than a confirmation bias feedback loop.
"You don't level up in a straight line. You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
That part tracks. I've been doing breathwork and mindfulness for my PTSD for going on six years now, and yeah, it's not linear. Some mornings I wake up and it's like I'm back at square one. But then I'm not — I can see the old pattern from further out now. That's real. What I don't buy is that a fractal generator proves something metaphysical about it. You're seeing a visual metaphor that matches your felt experience, and then you're reverse-engineering meaning into the math.
Gleick's book is solid, I read it years ago. But the mathematicians he interviewed weren't concluding the universe was speaking to them — they were describing emergent complexity from simple rules. That's fascinating on its own without needing to bolt on Jung's mandala stuff. Sometimes a self-similar pattern is just a self-similar pattern. The fact that it resonates with you says more about your psyche than about the math itself.
Look, I'm not saying the connection you felt isn't meaningful to you. Meaning is subjective and if this gave you a framework that helps, great. But when you start presenting it as though the fractal generator is revealing some hidden truth about reality rather than reflecting your own pattern-recognition hardware back at you, that's where I push back. The map isn't the territory, and a really good map still isn't the thing it's mapping.
-
"the idea that the microcosm reflects the macrocosm isn't just poetic anymore — it's literally what the math is doing"
Or maybe we're just doing the same thing I did when I tore apart my partner's chart looking for an explanation that wasn't there — finding meaning in patterns because the alternative is that it's all just math and nothing is watching.
-
"You don't level up in a straight line. You loop back around, but at a different scale each time."
That line hit me right in the chest. I’ve been wrestling with almost the exact same realization while prototyping a new indie game back here in Tokyo. I’m trying to build a procedural environment that actually feels alive, not just randomly generated noise. Last month I sat down to code a simple noise loop, tweaking the seed values while I was half-asleep after a shamanic journeying session. I didn’t set out to make art. I just fed the algorithm a basic rule: expand, contract, mirror. What popped up on my monitor wasn’t just terrain. It was this eerie, breathing labyrinth that looked exactly like the corridors I navigate when I’m lucid dreaming. It’s wild how a few lines of code can accidentally mirror the brain’s own recursive feedback loops.
I’ll be honest, I used to roll my eyes at the whole microcosm/macrocosm thing. Felt like people were just overfitting patterns to random experiences, which is a trap I’ve definitely fallen into myself. But watching these fractals unfold, I get why you’re seeing the World card everywhere. Carl Jung was onto something with the mandala concept, but it’s not just about dreams or myths. It’s literally how self-referential systems stabilize. When you zoom into a Mandelbrot set, you’re not seeing a design; you’re watching a mathematical equation express itself through infinite recursion. It’s not magic, it’s just math remembering itself.
And that’s where the jaw-dropping part kicks in. You mentioned eight octillion fractals, and I used to think that was just internet hyperbole. But when you actually sit with the code long enough, watching those branching patterns repeat across scales you didn’t even program, the number stops being abstract. It becomes physical. You start noticing the same spirals in the steam off your morning coffee, in the vein patterns on a discarded leaf, in the way your own thoughts keep circling back to the same core questions. The universe isn’t just hiding in the details; it’s built from them. I spent three weeks debugging a single texture generator before I finally let the algorithm run wild. When it finally rendered, I just sat there in the dark, watching the screen pulse, completely speechless. Some patterns don’t need to be forced. They just need permission to breathe.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login